A world without religion.

• Phunkie wrote on 2012-04-20 07:22
  Faith is important.
  
  But you can have faith or hope for a better, brighter future without religion.
• Kaon wrote on 2012-04-20 07:34
  Religion is an important part of our world state as something that comforts and calms the populace. People are sheep, they want to be led, they want to feel safe, and they want to feel like everything is taken care of. Whether it be religion, or a social leader, people look up to someone else to take on the responsibility and blame they don't feel like they can deal with. They feel better when good things happen, because they feel taken care of.
  
  It boosts the morale of the people and keeps order. Take that away and... well, a few things would happen.
  
  1. People would find new things to take care of them. Kings worshiped as gods are already something we've had in the past, and realistically people would just form "religion" if we didn't already have it. Cults, clubs, political parties... something that holds a defined standard that people can pin their structure to. It very much carries the potential for control of the masses as well, and leaders in need of order would realistically be taking advantage of such.
  
  2. Wars would not just start breaking out, nor would they stop. Religion has been as much a moral standard as it has a justification for war. And, as has been stated, people do carry their own moral standards independent of religion, as do wars start for other reasons and with other justifications.
  
  Personally, I see religion as something that is part of our world naturally because of how people function, and it's not going anywhere. It's not so simply just removed... human beings would have to be beings that worked in a fundamentally different way.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-20 10:44
  A world without religion would be awful!
  
  

  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. -James 1:27

  
  
  If we use the Bible's definition of religion that is!
• Episkey wrote on 2012-04-20 13:54

  Quote from TA;843348:

  Unfortunately, this isn't a debate over the Judeo-Christian god and subsequent religions. And even if it were, those religions have already claimed so many lives that it would be ridiculous to argue that they haven't.

  
  
  ...
  Then your point on human sacrifice? :srsly?:
  
  
  

  Quote from TA;843348:

  
  I can tell you, Atheists sure as hell wouldn't have marched on the promised land. Hell, the land of Israel is still being bloodied to this day over those silly religious beliefs.

  
  
  Not all wars were started by religion, therefore even without religion - wars would still happen.
  Conflict between nations, border disputes, etc.
  
  Now that I think about it, wouldn't such high technological progress actually make wars worse? I'm thinking about the world being nuked - but worse. I mean, we frankly have atomic weaponry and that's quite devastating.
  
  

  Quote from TA;843348:

  
  That's funny...
  
  [spoiler]Considering the symbol of said religion....
  
  

  [Image: http://i.minus.com/jbmWBjkoLGin0i.jpg]

  
  
  ...happens to be a human sacrifice.
  
  ...and the biggest tenant of said religion happens to be a human sacrifice for religious benefit (e.g. "removal of sin").
  
  :chin:[/spoiler]

  
  
  That's funny ...
  
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Because Jesus wasn't really fully human, but also divine.
  
  And after the Crucifixion, the Resurrection occurred 3 days later.
  
  

  [Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Noel-coypel-the-resurrection-of-christ-1700.jpg]

  
  
  So, a human sacrifice? Not if the sacrifice is still living :sing:[/SPOILER]
• Rin wrote on 2012-04-20 15:42
  Fear of the unknown, and what our human minds can never comprehend.
  
  And we theorize, whether it sounds farfetched or not.
  
  I think as a pure human being (before we go morph ourselves by cybernetics, genetics, and what not), religion is but as much of a limitation of our species as is hunger and mortality.
• TA wrote on 2012-04-20 21:28

  Quote from Episkey;843628:

  ...
  Then your point on human sacrifice? :srsly?:
  
  Not all wars were started by religion, therefore even without religion - wars would still happen.
  Conflict between nations, border disputes, etc.
  
  Now that I think about it, wouldn't such high technological progress actually make wars worse? I'm thinking about the world being nuked - but worse. I mean, we frankly have atomic weaponry and that's quite devastating.
  
  That's funny ...
  
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Because Jesus wasn't really fully human, but also divine.
  
  And after the Crucifixion, the Resurrection occurred 3 days later.
  
  

  [Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Noel-coypel-the-resurrection-of-christ-1700.jpg]

  
  
  So, a human sacrifice? Not if the sacrifice is still living :sing:[/SPOILER]

  
  
  Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts...
  
  You quoted a post that said "if everyone in the world suddenly gained 100 points in IQ, most of the world would no longer believe in any type of religion" with the retort "Interesting. But, I wonder how their EQ (Emotional quotient) scores would fair?" which implies that a world that would no longer believe in any type of religion would have a poor EQ.
  
  This then brings us to the argument that the religious are morally superior, to which I countered with a direct example of how that is not the case.
  
  Illogical primitive beliefs do not somehow create a moral superiority. In fact, all it does is dilute the logical mind and set an environment to ignore facts that do not meet with one's religious beliefs. As I said, beliefs are absolute, immutable. Without beliefs, there are ideas, and ideas are transmutable - they can change.
  
  So let's say the popular religious belief is that sacrificing a man on an altar every day would appease the gods and make it rain.
  
  Now let's say someone questions this. They tell them that it's ridiculous and that obviously weather patterns cause it to rain and sacrificing someone has absolutely nothing to do with it.
  
  If it were an idea, then perhaps they could be swayed. But if it is a belief? This is heracy against THEIR GOD. And you know what happens to heretics...
  
  You cannot question something that has no proof that it exists (or doesn't exist) to begin with.
  
  If there is a hypothesis which assumes that x is the reason for y, then someone later comes along and proves that it probably isn't the case, then society moves forward. However, if it is a belief that x is the reason for y, then we cannot move forward, because beliefs cannot change. They are direct mandates from the divine, and for a mere mortal to question the word of a god is unthinkable.
  
  In retrospect to your EQ post, it seems it was just very poor wording on your part; though, I disagree with the assertion that those with a higher IQ are bound to have a lower EQ.
  
  As for the reference to Judeo-Christian sacrifice, whether it is human or not is irrelevant; though, there are problems with that concept to begin with, considering:
  
  [spoiler]

  According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
  
  The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!
  
  Roman Catholics believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
  
  Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
  
  The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
  
  Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God’s One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.
  
  In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry—one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.

  
  
  From this, we can reach the conclusion:
  1) Jesus was either human, or
  2) Jesus was a false profit, or
  3) It was made up.
  
  This is further reinforced by the following:
  
  

  The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
  
  Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

  
  
  Whereupon we can follow up with the fact that Jewish belief is based solely on national revelation:
  
  

  Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation—i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He’ll tell everyone, not just one person.
  
  Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God’s true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show—assuming they are genuine—is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.
  
  Judaism, unique among all of the world’s major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
  
  Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
  The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone’s belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
  
  What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you…" The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us—who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)
  
  Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

  
  
  There's a lot more, but I've already said all of this before.
  
  With that said, if we are to assume the original religion were true, then the subsequent branch off from it cannot be true due to it not fulfilling the requirements stated in said original religion.
  
  I, personally, do not believe any of this myself. If I did however, I would have to reach the conclusion that the entire New Testament, and in fact, the entire Christian Religion is based upon a charlatan (who perhaps could perform miracles and was resurrected from the dead, to test the faithful) and false prophet, and only the Old Testament and Torah would hold true.
  
  Unfortunately, this brings us into a religious debate, which I don't care to have as I don't acknowledge their solidity to begin with considering they in large part directly contradict science. I mean, there is actually a belief that the world started directly after the agricultural revolution, with the age of the earth being only 5000 years old. That's just quite honestly completely ludicrous. We can already prove without a reason of a doubt that the earth is much older than 5000 years old.
  
  This, of course, leads me to a Lawrence Krauss quote:
  

  "Most people want to believe in believing. . .
  most people of faith in our society naturally pick and choose from the doctrine things they find absolutely ridiculous and throw out; and the question is, and the Pope would say that's not palatable - and I would tend to agree with the Pope. I think if you can't believe some of the stuff and need to throw it out, then just forget the whole thing."

  
  
  Which, I believe to be absolute truth.[/spoiler]
  
  Now, with that said... whether it was a human, a demi-god, or a god, is up for debate, though the fact that it is a sacrifice is very clear (Hebrews 10:1-18); a "final sacrifice" in fact.
  
  But from this, we can still reach the belief that x was sacrificed for y, to appease the god(s). It is the same standard philosophy that the much more primitive religions follow, for instance "sacrifice 1 man on an altar a day for there to be rain, as it will appease the god(s)"; 1 man, 1 god, sins, rain, it's all completely irrelevant.
  
  We're still looking at a primitive belief that a sacrifice will (or did) directly correlate to the causality of divine action.
  
  When you get right into it, the major basis tends to be the same: Offering an explanation for the things that people at the time could not understand nor explain outside of supernatural means.
  
  In one, we have it raining or a volcano erupting or an earthquake shaking the earth as a direct result of divine action. We, of course, now know this not to be the case, and find it entirely silly.
  
  Divine explanations for events that we cannot otherwise explain. This, in a nutshell, is the basis of religion. For the things we cannot answer and seek the answer to, one is provided.
  
  The problem is, there is no proof that the answer provided is true or not, there is no proof. You can't prove it true nor false. This is the major reason for the prevalence of religion's existence still today.
  
  When man could explain why the earth shook, and volcanoes erupted, and why it rains, and why droughts and floods occur, man largely stopped believing in the primitive superstitions that explained them, as it was then evident that it was not the case.
  
  I think that when we can answer the questions that religion fills the holes of, that religion will no longer be necessary. At such a time, I think the theoretical scenario in the OP will occur, at least to a very large extent.
  
  Superstition always exists in some form when something cannot be clearly explained by other means.
  
  As for another point made... religion is simply the answer to a few questions. Whether it provides a moral guideline or not is irrelevant, as it is likely that such moral guidelines would still be present in a civilized society regardless.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-20 21:56

  According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
  

  
  
  Jesus wasn't just a "demi-god" [S](Didn't you know that Awakening of Light only lasts for a few minutes?)[/S], he actually was God in the flesh. Whether or not your obscure "Jewish Sources" agree or not is irrelevant to the doctrine of Christianity.
  
  

  The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!
  

  
  
  Nowhere in those two passages does it say that the father is from the Davidic line. All it says is that Jesus will be from the Davidic line. It's important to actually read the Bible before criticizing it.
  
  

  Roman Catholics believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
  

  
  
  So what's your point? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
  
  

  The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
  
  Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God’s One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.

  
  
  That's easily reconciled with 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
  
  

  The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

  
  
  "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." -Matthew 5:17
  The Old Testament ritual laws were a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1).
  
  

  Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

  
  
  John 1:45 is totally irrelevant to the discussion. The reason the Sabbath law was repealed is because Jesus was a fulfillment of what the Sabbath represented (salvation).
  
  I'll leave it at that for now, if there's anything you want me to address specifically, then just tell me.
• TA wrote on 2012-04-20 21:59

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;843948:

  I'll leave it at that for now, if there's anything you want me to address specifically, then just tell me.

  
  
  

  Quote from TA;843931:

  Unfortunately, this brings us into a religious debate, which I don't care to have as I don't acknowledge their solidity to begin with

  
  
  :whistle:
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-20 22:01

  Unfortunately, this brings us into a religious debate, which I don't care to have as I don't acknowledge their solidity to begin with

  
  
  Hmmm... You must be asserting your fourth amendment rights, because that was a very clever cop out!
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-20 22:02
  Not much different in the grand scale of things.
  
  You don't need a god to love people, you don't need one to hate them. You just need ideologies.
• Episkey wrote on 2012-04-20 22:41

  Quote from TA;843931:

  Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts...

  
  
  I actually really do. As in, I try to understand your point - however I'm only human.
  
  Which brings me to my next point :/
  
  

  Quote from TA;843931:

  
  You quoted a post that said "if everyone in the world suddenly gained 100 points in IQ, most of the world would no longer believe in any type of religion" with the retort "Interesting. But, I wonder how their EQ (Emotional quotient) scores would fair?" which implies that a world that would no longer believe in any type of religion would have a poor EQ.

  
  
  Perhaps that implication was there, but as stated previously - my real point (Which is what matters) was this:
  
  
  

  Quote from Episkey;843328:

  
  My statement concerning EQ was simply a retort about how having a higher IQ is necessarily better. Since I believe that EQ and IQ are both important, if not equally as such. In hindsight, I probably should have outright stated that.

  
  
  
  Which then yet again brings me to my next point.
  
  

  Quote from TA;843931:

  
  In retrospect to your EQ post, it seems it was just very poor wording on your part; though, I disagree with the assertion that those with a higher IQ are bound to have a lower EQ.

  
  
  It was poor wording, yes I admit. But corresponding with my real intention (And not any faulty implication), what does moral superiority and human sacrifice have remotely to do with anything?
  
  Which is why I previously asked that question, because now I'm straight up confused.
  
  And Lastly, this brings up my next point.
  
  

  Quote from TA;843931:

  
  I disagree with the assertion that those with a higher IQ are bound to have a lower EQ.

  
  
  ...
  
  

  Quote from Episkey;843328:

  
  Since I believe that EQ and IQ are both important, if not equally as such.

  
  
  Was that simply just a random personal conviction? Because I never "asserted" those with a higher IQ are bound to have a lower EQ.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-20 22:55

  Quote from TA;843166:

  
  I'll tell you right now, from a scientist's perspective, the Dark Ages never ended. We're still being heavily repressed by religious views in our research, and what we can and cannot do because of it. Even without the 1000 year gap from the Dark Ages taken into account, even without religion today, we would be progressing forward so much faster than we are now.

  
  
  I have a riddle for you.
  
  What do these men all have in common: Robert Boyle, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Lord Kelvin.
  
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]They were all great scientists, and they were religious. Because guess what, a belief in a God who created the universe spurs on a desire to explore the universe and find out how it works.[/SPOILER]
• Chiyuri wrote on 2012-04-20 23:29

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;844002:

  I have a riddle for you.
  
  What do these men all have in common: Robert Boyle, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Lord Kelvin.
  
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]They were all great scientists, and they were religious. Because guess what, a belief in a God who created the universe spurs on a desire to explore the universe and find out how it works.[/SPOILER]

  
  
  can't this be seen as that back then, christianity was everywhere in those areas and there was no known any better?
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-20 23:34
  Or perhaps it's kind of both and the world isn't just greyscales.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-21 11:36

  Quote from Chiyuri;844032:

  can't this be seen as that back then, christianity was everywhere in those areas and there was no known any better?

  
  
  Except that empirical science was based on the idea that an all powerful God provided the order and natural laws in the universe necessary for science to actually work. Without a belief in that kind of order and consistency, nobody would bother trying to figure out how things work.